Citation please? because I thought we were all given the reason for MSFT pushing the POS Kinect when the patent came out showing they had filed a patent on charging by the head for PPV movies. Of course we have all seen how well it works with gameplay [angryjoeshow.com] and its pretty much universally hated for anything other than dancing games.

To me the Kinect is the perfect example of why Ballmer should have been axed half a decade ago, come up with a DUMB idea to make money, refuse to accept its a dumb idea, and spend a

The very title of your comment makes it hard not to blow the whole comment away. Why do you want HL3 so bad? It's not done, them working "really super hard on it" isn't going to make art/the process/their feelings toward the game any better any faster.

If you think that "working really super hard" makes art come out faster, there is a reason you're not the one making HL3. They might have already finished it, looked at the product and said "this is bad, start over", as they did nine times with TF2.

But no, please keep shouting "where is HL3!!" because it's super important to the history of the world that a single video game comes out.

The amount of impatience you show with VR and Video Games (HL3 in this case) is kind of astounding. What are you out, having

There have been couple of screenshot leaks from their project tracker and HL3 has always been just some kind of early experimental stub there. It may not ever be developed into a real game. Listening Gabe's lately talks, to me it seems that Valve's focus for the future is on Left 4 Dead -type online multiplayer games.

Now, on the other hand, Source 2 has had truly massive resources put into it, so at least it will be very interesting to see what this novel engine has to offer.

My bet is that HL3 will be the first source2 game and it will have full VR support and be sold in bundles. headset (insert witty name here) + steam machine + hl3. Steam after all was (practically) launched with hl2.

I've held this suspicion too. Why deliver a game people have been begging for like oversexed whores for years, when you can deliver the game and a tech improvement that'll bust everyone's balls, propelling the former to "technical marvel" and instantly making a market for the latter?

This was evident from Carmacks talk at QuakeCon 2013. He talked about meeting with valve employees and discussing VR. He talked about how the Valve guys showed him that black to white times on the screen were just as important as standard refresh rates. So it makes sense that they would be developing Source 2 to work with VR.

As a quick sidenote, there's a couple of good channels at YouTube for anyone who wants to listen/see JC's previous keynotes (and other id Software stuff): idFan_EngineCoder [youtube.com], James Fisher [youtube.com]. I hope he is able to pop in this year too, even after moving to Oculus...

I don't want to be "that guy", but a response to a Reddit AMA, with no real details or anything, is quite a stretch to put into it's own news story.

Perhaps if all his comments were collated, and this was one of them you might have some kind of story, but the summary was just about as many words as the "news story" (real big comedy air quotes here) is.

The Occulus team has been shooting for close to, or below, the $300 dev kit price for a long time. They realize that cost will be a big factor in the adoption rate and they need to sell a ton for the first commercial release to get and keep the software developers making VR content.

The most obvious game type for VR would be FPS, but I can imagine a few others that I would love to play in VR. Top of my list would be space sims - I would love to be able to sit down at my desk, pop on a VR hood, and play something along the line of X-Wing or Freespace. Flight sims and racing games would work really well also.

Maybe it is a problem that screen resolution and headmounted cameras can fix, but every time I get excited about VR, I think about how often I get to look at my computer screen TO THE EXCLUSION of the real world (never).
A full face headset is a 15 minute toy at best for me, because life is not generally set up for total immersion except in very rare situations.

I have a hard enough time finding a chance to play games without a pause button, I can't imagine how little time I would play one that requires yo

3D TV is different to VR, IMO. 3D is a little like the jump from 720p to 1080p. You notice it, sure, but soon merges into the background. The VR headsets, by many accounts, offer a very different and more immersive experience and they're better suited to their medium. VR headsets are pitched at games because in a game you're interacting with a virtual world. Up until now, your window into that world is a fixed screen that you control with your fingers. With a VR headset you're stepping into that world. Many

3D is a little like the jump from 720p to 1080p. You notice it, sure, but soon merges into the background.

I disagree. The 3DTV difference is huge because

a) you have to wear a pair of glasses to see it. So suddenly its an extra step to be able to watch anything. You can't switch from 2D to 3D content without getting an accessory and putting it on. This is very similar to VR.

b) its irritating for anyone in the room without a set of glasses on, or casually interacting with it because all they can see is a blur

Maybe it is a problem that screen resolution and headmounted cameras can fix, but every time I get excited about VR, I think about how often I get to look at my computer screen TO THE EXCLUSION of the real world (never).

A full face headset is a 15 minute toy at best for me, because life is not generally set up for total immersion except in very rare situations.

I have a hard enough time finding a chance to play games without a pause button, I can't imagine how little time I would play one that requires you to don and remove a facemask in-between distractions.

I mean there are lonely otaku that could live in this thing, but the vast majority of people *even geeks* actually have to log into the real world more often than you'd think.

I know I know, games aren't geared toward old dudes with disposable income and kids and wives... but really, VR seems to have a deceptively small use-case

Ya, and cars when first made were slower then horses, guess they will never catch on, right?

Actually... I have an Oculus Rift and have to say I don't use it more than 30 minutes to an hour at a time.

Mostly because a lack of a killer app at this point (Skyrim with special drivers comes close, but I think Star Citizen will be the app everyone has to get VR because its amazing just sitting in the hanger looking at the 3d screens sitting in your ship's hanger that pop out at you).

Anyways... If you can't find 30 minutes to an hour a day to enjoy some me time then I would argue that there is something w

One a side note. If your significant other doesn't allow you 30 minutes of me time uninterrupted then you are going to have a rocky relationship.

When my special something is reading a book. I leave her alone unless its an emergency. (Also she has a bad habit of watching TV shows ahead of me on hulu so if I bother her she will start saying spoilers).

When I'm on the computer she does the same.

I just make sure at a certain time I turn the computer off and spend some time with her before we go to bed.